Yes, it's the confrontation clause.
Some courts have allowed child witnesses to testify from behind screens so they don't have to actually see the accused, but this is rarely allowed, usually only when there has been very serious abuse. But the child has to give the testimony in the presence of the accused and the defense lawyer, and be subject to cross-examination. There are many proposals around, one of them being to allow the child to be in a different room and testify and be cross examined by video, without being able to see the courtroom and accused, but I don't know of any state that's allowed that, though maybe some have.
It was the statement that it's better for a child to move on and forget prosecuting, that troubled me. I guess I don't see
them as mutually exclusive.
I think the theory is that once the accused is identified and the abuse identified, the child is unlikely to be molested again, and the cost to the child of having to be examined, testify, stretch it all out for months or years, is so traumatic and delays the healing process so long, relatively to a 4 or 5 year old, that it's better, some think, just to let the child get on with his life even if the accused goes free.
It's one of those really unsatisfactory situations for all involved, but I'm not sure what a better alternative is that protects all the parties. |
